Re: Questions for Jeroen van Wolffelaar and Andreas Schuldei
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 11:41:42AM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Jeroen van Wolffelaar <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I don't think it'd be particularly well-recieved if someone who, after
> > all, was not elected, would assume leadership. Regardless of the
> > constitutional issues, it was clear that there was some bit of angst
> > among DD's during last year's campaigning period about that very issue.
> You wouldn't have been assuming leadership of the project in any formal
> manner. However, you've made it clear that you think that the DPL team
> needs leadership - you had the opportunity to provide coordination and
> make sure that things got done, but chose not to.
I tried, by pushing for meetings etc. However, I do not think this is
really something a non-DPL can actually enforce in such a team.
The concept is new and the team members had varying views and
expectations on how exactly the team should and should not work.
> > So, concluding, just because I wasn't DPL. Similarly, if you'd elect me,
> > you'll get me, and not possibly maybe one of the DPL team members whose
> > names I'll announce in a few days. I'll still allow the DPL team members
> > to pick up things they want to pick up as far as they can do so without
> > special privileges, as they see fit.
> But surely the point of a team is for people to be able to pick up the
> slack if someone can't cope?
No, the point is to assist and enable the DPL to be more effective. The
team can help in periods of reduced availability, but cannot replace the
DPL if he is absent or not leading the team.
> If you believe that the DPL should still be a single point of failure,
> what's the point in electing you?
The DPL remains a single point of failure. With a team, the DPL will
cope at least as good as without, and probably much better.
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)